what is most important tennis record after slam count
- Thread starter adil1972
- Start date
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
Basel titles...
Yugram
Legend
H2H is not a tennis record, it’s an indicator of who was the historically better player of the 2
specifically Slam H2H.
For example, we can safely say that Nadal was better player than Federer due to massive H2H lead both in Slemz and off Slemz.
no, Kyrgios, Davydenko etc don’t have historically significant amount of matches against Djokodal, you salty fed fan
For example, we can safely say that Nadal was better player than Federer due to massive H2H lead both in Slemz and off Slemz.
No, no one cares about "since 1337, 2014, 2077", you salty fed fan
LOL
Service Ace
Hall of Fame
Consecutive Slam SFs
weakera
Talk Tennis Guru
Cashman
Hall of Fame
The title's presupposition that slam count is the most important tennis record is false. For most of tennis history, slam count has been utterly meaningless.
If there is a most important tennis record (and I think that is a bit of a dumb concept) it is the Grand Slam - as in, winning all four major tournaments in a single season. It has been considered the ultimate tennis achievement since the 1930s.
If there is a most important tennis record (and I think that is a bit of a dumb concept) it is the Grand Slam - as in, winning all four major tournaments in a single season. It has been considered the ultimate tennis achievement since the 1930s.
MS_07
Semi-Pro
Tennis_Freak99
Legend
Most Haggis Eater> Slems
D
Deleted member 775898
Guest
The record where my favorite player leads over the other two, obviously.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Purrty backhand, no?
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Consecutive slam 3Rs, no?
irishnadalfan1983
Hall of Fame
Weeks at number 1 I’d be thinking....
How highly do you rate winning 4 in a row, that span over two years? Like Djokovic did
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Next year Djokovic will do it.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Pancho's time at #1 would have been even greater if he wasn't self taught. GOAT talent.
why do you think that individual Slams are the ultimate metric?
there are enough examples with one player utterly dominating one slam edition to the extent that it became boring.
now try to become #1, and maintain that.
this requires being not only good at slams, but as well M1000.
Being consistent over two weeks or over 52 weeks?
I take the 52 weeks any days.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
GOAT talent who couldn't win a major on clay. Still don't get how you guys put him up there with Fed and Laver.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
H2h is for crazies.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Pancho is the most overrated club tennis player of all time. Period.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Pancho is a club tennis player, nothing more.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
H2H isn't a record, sorry.
And despite what endless Djoker fanboyz post here, Fed fans aren't moving the goalposts:
Weeks at #2 is by far the most important record in tennis after # of slams.
NatF
Bionic Poster
On the one hand you'll claw at his #1 record for taking place during the time of split fields (I find it unlikely he loses many years at #1 in a full field BTW) and then on the other you ignore the fact that the split field prevented him from having many chances to compete on clay. How many majors did he play on clay in his prime? The answer is three, the French Pro in 1956, 1958 and 1961. He made two finals and SF in those runs BTW. If it had been a regular part of his calendar he may well have won it. Not to mention the fact as you well know the status of the Pro Majors as the pinacle of the tour has often been debated - Pancho's focus was much more on the World Tours and being the top pro.
Try and keep the double standards to a minimum if you're going to come @ me man.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
Not a single one of the Nadal and Djokovic fans could name off the top of their head any H2H of past rivalries. One or two might come up with 7-7 Borg-Mac because it's easy to remember. Otherwise, forget it, because it's not a stat relevant to tennis history in any prior rivalry.
USO
Banned
I don't understand what Djokovic fans are doing in this thread. Right now it's 20-20-17, so it doesn't matter for Djokovic fans to argue about weeks at no.1, h2h, other stats. All your arguments will be irrelevant until the racket breaker Djokovic makes it to 20, which he won't.
Last edited:
Let me answer with the words of someone who should be authority for you"
I only have 1 correction, it's not only the slams, but #1 in ranking as well.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Federer beat Roddick and Baghdatis. Not his main rivals Djokovic and Nadal.
If I were him, I'd rather have the titles of 2008 Wimbledon, 2011 US Open, 2019 Wimbledon by beating Djokodal instead of most of his actual titles, although winning a Slam is never easy and it's certainly great (that's why I still hold it as the #1 GOAT metric).
It is not Fed fault that Djokodal are younger and lost to the field before they had the chance to meet Fed.
I haven't seen Djokodal refusing to play a GS final because they didn't face anyone from the Big 3/4
There were recently enough USO editions won by Novak or Rafael in which they didn't face anyone from Big 3 or Big 4.
And Novak even played the USO 2020 knowing that neither Nadal nor Fed don't participate.
You need to differentiate between your imagination and real life.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
As I said, all Slam titles are great, but those won beating GOATs are a bit greater for me. That's it.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Personally, it goes like this:
Slam count (Bo5 all seven rounds, usually top players)
Weeks @ #1 (a sum of overall achievements, basically)
YE-#1 (best player of the year)
CYGS (clean sweep of all Slams in a calendar year, says enough really; you could put this over YE-#1)
YEC (strongest field of all, but hampered slightly by the Bo3 and the match loss cushion; if you win it without dropping a match, though, it rates very highly in my book); also Olympics
H2H / Slam H2H (way too many factors can tilt it one way or another, like age advantages (Fed-Djoker since 2013), timing (Djoker-Nadal in 2015-2016), surface skew (Nadal-Djoker 8 RG matches), and simply poor matchups in general (Santoro-Safin, to give a well-known example); additionally, tennis is played against the field and not just one player; this isn't boxing)
Sometimes, this list might not reflect true greatness when we start discussing past players; Laver only won 11 Slams but we know that he and other players were banned from the Majors when they turned pro. Some nuance is needed.
Slam count (Bo5 all seven rounds, usually top players)
Weeks @ #1 (a sum of overall achievements, basically)
YE-#1 (best player of the year)
CYGS (clean sweep of all Slams in a calendar year, says enough really; you could put this over YE-#1)
YEC (strongest field of all, but hampered slightly by the Bo3 and the match loss cushion; if you win it without dropping a match, though, it rates very highly in my book); also Olympics
H2H / Slam H2H (way too many factors can tilt it one way or another, like age advantages (Fed-Djoker since 2013), timing (Djoker-Nadal in 2015-2016), surface skew (Nadal-Djoker 8 RG matches), and simply poor matchups in general (Santoro-Safin, to give a well-known example); additionally, tennis is played against the field and not just one player; this isn't boxing)
Sometimes, this list might not reflect true greatness when we start discussing past players; Laver only won 11 Slams but we know that he and other players were banned from the Majors when they turned pro. Some nuance is needed.
when your biggest threat is a semi-retired 38 years old dude, and you need to take him to the tie break of the 6th set, it shouldn't taste sweet.
especially when the same dude defeats your favorite in straight sets few months later, when the YE#1 in on the line.
especially when your favorite losses first two sets 0:6 2:6 to his arch-rival
if anything, this only proves that in the past few years there is nobody to challenge your favorite, so don't know how this can be "sweet".
Simply keep in mind that Fed generation already retired: Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandyan, Davydenko.
Those folks were from his generation.
Djokodal and Fed are as much one generation like Kuerten and Sampras.
If you believe that Kuerten and Sampras belong to the same generation, well then enjoy the fact that there is nobody else who can challenge your favorite player.
NatF
Bionic Poster
French Open 2019 Federer > Wimbledon 2004 Roddick
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
AO 2020 Federer > any of those is probably the biggest offender imo
NatF
Bionic Poster
It was one example of many. Could easily have picked Djokovic of this years FO as well just from recently.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
There's some influence of form and surface, but overall beating Big3 is the hardest task in tennis.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
It's likely he would have lost years at No 1 in a full field with greater competition, such as has occurred since the Open Era began. That's not just a criticism of him btw, but of comparing the 7-8 yrs guys like him and Tilden had at No 1 vs, say, Sampras and Novak Djokovic's 6 yrs, and concluding that the former guys were even more dominant. I just don't buy the "Gonzales was the best far longer than anyone else" narrative.
Reasonable point about the clay majors, but shouldn't a GOAT-level talent have won one of those three? Or maybe he was just very talented, rather than GOAT level. Plus I note you're giving him bonus points for being self-taught (much like your comrade-in-arms Octopus did for him coming from a poor background). You guys will throw in any subjective factors to keep Pancho on top.
